Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

However, I accept Mr. Watt's point entirely. I think we have seen a lot of that in recent years. I accept the point. The only matter that concerns me is that agencies adhere to the rules and do most, if not all, of their business in the public domain in order that it is available to both the Comptroller and Auditor General and this committee. What is most important is that we should have an opportunity to review that to ensure the previous two points are adhered to. If we are in that position, regardless of the figures involved, even if it does not sit well with some, the bottom line is that rules be adhered to, as Mr. Watt highlighted with my first point about a payment of in excess of €1 million to one individual.

I accept the point that a contract is a contract. While these can be challenged and renegotiated, the bottom line is that if agreements are in place, adhered to, accessible and reported, that in itself is adequate in terms of public service oversight on expenditure by this committee.

The Comptroller and Auditor General's report has highlighted certain parts of various schemes, or one scheme in particular where rules were bent or ignored. In other instances, contractual agreements have been challenged with money thrown at legal costs to ensure the matter is dealt with, which means ultimately the taxpayer is footing the bill. The Comptroller and Auditor General highlights one particular instance in the Central Bank where a contractor was treated as an employee, I presume following a legal challenge. While neither he nor I has the legal advice available, it presents a difficulty because as a report from the Central Bank is subject to the Comptroller and Auditor General, it is subject to this committee. As such there are questions there that, I am sure, my colleagues will cover. I thank Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Watts.